Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:12:02 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Hamish Stewart wrote:
>
> I used to use another version of a similar Kodak product 4168 also I
> think SO336 (I stand to be corrected). Liked this film very much, but the
.... SO339.....
> exposures where long - though once you have worked out the right time for
> your negs, I found you can often use a standard time. Develop in Dektol
> at either 1:1 or straight up to 5 mins. This for gum - other processes
> you would want to run longer time or use stronger dev - perhaps D-19
> would give the additional density for other processes that need it.
>
Actually, seems to me you're damned if you do and damned if you don't -- I
am, as you know, big advocate of lith film, for all the reasons Hamish
cites, and it can also get as fine a texture & precise a scale as so forth
& so forth & so on. But recently making a 3 coat gum with an old neg on
4168 I realized -- that *(&^%$()_*$##@ sheet of film is more dimensionally
stable than the flimsy lith. It came out SHARPER than I can get with lith
unless I've got the paper on a rigid substrate & maybe even then. I don't
usually care about sharp, often prefer soft, but in this case I did & it
sure was.
That by the way is a problem waiting to be addressed with digital paper
negs -- they are not sufficiently rigid for precise re-register, should
that be your desire. I think the answer may lie in plastic extensions
taped onto 4 sides, but haven't gotten to that yet.
> The film eventually became unavailable in australia so I stopped using
> it. Also for my gum prints lith negs work well and being restricted to no
> larger than 8x10 is also a little frustrating. This other thing to
> remember is that this film also makes your exposures longer due to the
> high density of the film base...
Hamish, if you're talking about the UV exposures, measured in minutes --
do you really find the thicker film appreciably longer? I haven't
noticed, tho of course I seldom do those tiny 8x10s ! (And now all bets
are off -- back to the fluorescents while the NuArc sulks in bed, for a
change.)
Judy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:39